Salvation from c200AD to 1517?

BobRyan · Apr 12, 2005

Cath Encylopedia even admits to anabaptist beliefs prior to the 16th century...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm

It admits that the Waldenses were among the groups that accepted believers Baptism (the Bible model ) and rejected man's traditions -- and even admit to early history of the Waldenses --

Though as the criminal exterminators of the Waldenses - we do not expect the word of the mass murderer to be taken over the word of her victims.

In Christ,

Bob

Matt Black · Apr 13, 2005

Hmmm...not impressed by the list you posted. The Waldenses were certainly proto-evangelical in some respects but to call them Anabaptists is wide of the mark. The Montanists were what we would today call hyper-charismatics, no evidence they believed in modern 'Baptist' baptism; indeed, Tertullian after his apostasing to Montanism urges that baptism be delayed until just before death, as he is convinced that baptism forgives sins and that there can be no forgiveness for sins committed thereafter. The Donatists were more concerned with those who had abjured the faith under torture - they wanted them to 'start again' by getting rebaptised - but that would apply equally to those who had originally been baptised as adults as well as infants.

Methinks I smell the deceiving stench of the 'Trail of Blood' in your list...

Yours in Christ

Matt

BobRyan · Apr 16, 2005

Christian groups that refused to recognize infant Baptism - and so had believers "baptized" or "Rebaptized" if baptized as infants - are the doctrinal ancestors of the anabaptists.

Even the RCC recognizes this.

In Christ,

Bob

Matt Black · Apr 18, 2005

And your primary source documents for this assertion are....?

Yours in Christ

Matt

BobRyan · Apr 21, 2005

http://www.whatis.tv/Anabaptist.html

Anabaptists ("re-baptizers", from Greek ana and baptizo; in German: Wiedertäufer)
...
The term was coined by critics, who objected to the practice of performing baptism for adults whose previous baptism, as infants, the Anabaptists claimed was not valid.
...

The present concept and idea of Anabaptism or rebaptism has been regarded at least since the 2nd century. Some Anabaptists would even point to the 1st century example of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter 19. Montanus, the Montanists, and Tertullian (2nd and 3rd centuries) denied infant baptism, practiced believer's baptism, and rebaptized those baptized by heretics. The Donatists (4th century) re-baptized those who had been baptized by bishops who were traditors, or who were from churches stained by fellowship with traditors¹. Anabaptists (rebaptizers) were made criminals under the code of Justinian (A.D. 529). With anti-trinitarianism, it was one of two heresies punishable by death.
Click to expand...

Cath Encyclopedia

The name Anabaptists, etymologically applicable, and sometimes applied to Christian denominations that practise re-baptism is, in general historical usage, restricted to those who, denying the validity of infant baptism, became prominent during the great reform movement of the sixteenth century.

The distinctive principles upon which Anabaptists generally agreed were the following:

#1 They aimed at restoring what they claimed to have been primitive Christianity. This restoration included the rejection of oaths and capital punishment and the abstention from the exercise of magistracy.

#2In a more consistent manner than the majority of Protestant reformers, they maintained the absolute supremacy and sole sufficiency of the canonical Scriptures as a norm of faith. However, private inspiration and religious sentiment played an important role among them.

#3. Infant baptism and the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone were rejected as without scriptural warrant.

#4. The new Kingdom of God, which they purposed to found, was to be the reconstruction, on an entirely different basis, of both ecclesiastical and civil society. Communism, including for some of them the community of women, was to be the underlying principle of the new state.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm

Click to expand...

Matt Black · Apr 22, 2005

I think you're confusing a number of terms here, Bob plus straying into Trail of Blood dodgy territory.

First off, Tertullian as a Montanist was in favour of only baptising at the end of one's life, sonce he believed that sins post-baptism could not be forgiven. So he was not a Baptist or anabaptist in the strict sense of the word.

The Donatists only rebaptised because they believed that those who had apostasised through persecution had forfeited their salvation and needed to start again - they did this equally to those who had originally been baptised as adult believers as they did to those who had been christened as children. So, again, not very Baptistic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is more accurate, as it refers to anabaptism being contemporary with the Magisterial Reformation and no such groups having existed before that...which brings me full circle back to my OP question

Yours in Christ

Matt

Doubting Thomas · Apr 22, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] The Donatists only rebaptised because they believed that those who had apostasised through persecution had forfeited their salvation and needed to start again - they did this equally to those who had originally been baptised as adult believers as they did to those who had been christened as children. So, again, not very Baptistic.
Click to expand...

Good point. Plus, they considered any sacraments administered by the clergy who lapsed under persecution (by handing over scriptures, sacred vessels, etc.) to be null and void, thus requiring re-baptism ("Ana"-baptism) of those who baptized by such clergy. They certainly didn't belive in symbolic-only baptism.

BobRyan · Apr 22, 2005

Originally posted by BobRyan:
http://www.whatis.tv/Anabaptist.html

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Anabaptists ("re-baptizers", from Greek ana and baptizo; in German: Wiedertäufer)
...
The term was coined by critics, who objected to the practice of performing baptism for adults whose previous baptism, as infants, the Anabaptists claimed was not valid.
...

The present concept and idea of Anabaptism or rebaptism has been regarded at least since the 2nd century. Some Anabaptists would even point to the 1st century example of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter 19. Montanus, the Montanists, and Tertullian (2nd and 3rd centuries) denied infant baptism, practiced believer's baptism, and rebaptized those baptized by heretics.
...
(rebaptizers) were made criminals under the code of Justinian (A.D. 529). With anti-trinitarianism, it was one of two heresies punishable by death.
Click to expand...

</font>[/QUOTE]The point remains -

But this leads us to JUST how common the view of "no infant baptism" was that Tertullian and others of his day held to...

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Apr 22, 2005

Parenthetical notes “mine”.

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.
He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became (evolved to become?) the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"
Click to expand...

BobRyan · Apr 22, 2005

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".

Pg 44
"go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"

pg 45
"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

<>

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

<>

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

<>
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"

"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

<>
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didache on Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Click to expand...

BobRyan · Apr 22, 2005

Today in the RCC the "common" form of Baptism is infant baptism and sprinkling - by CONTRAST to the ECF quotes above.

How "instructive".

Doubting Thomas · Apr 22, 2005

Baptism in the early Church was indeed by triple immersion. Bob, you are correct.

BobRyan · Apr 22, 2005

The point is that baptism has become today (in some churches) a very different thing than what it was for the ECF Christians.

And today's popular version for infant Baptism is nothing like the Baptism we see in the NT.

All of that had to evolve over time.

As we can see from the ECF quotes - and the RC trace of the history of change EVEN the ECF groups had changed the "procedure" signifcantly from what we see in the NT.

Salvation from c200AD to 1517?

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Salvation from c200AD to 1517?

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter